 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Goq2K4.Irv@lugnet.com... (...) material (...) local (...) on (...) are (...) monitor (...) how (...) I never said it wasn't the parent's responsibility to monitor what material a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated material -that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your local public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it on most libary (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"John" <johnneal@qwest.net> wrote in message news:GopoH3.CFF@lugnet.com... (...) on (...) and (...) John - I hope you can settle down and move beyond personal attacks and discuss this rationally. I know you're above this. Jason - I see merit in what (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Equal? No. Different. I can certainly imagine some of the more privilaged of us on Lugnet who aren't after pieces, but after the collecting part of the hobby (or some such) who might value movies above Brickbay sales. I don't think you have (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:m23d242o2n.fsf@...rds.net... (...) Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over 18 (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes: <snip> I'm having a hard time reconciling "Jason Rowoldt" and "merely another slimeball" as phrases that belong in the same *post*, frankly. Jason has done a great deal of good for the hobby with his efforts, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
Hi John, Since you have personally attacked me, I feel I need to respond. However, I'm (going to try to) not personally attack you in response. I don't think that's going to do anything. From the nature of the comments you have left, I can tell (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Your definition of "pornographic" is clearly out of sync with the generally-accepted definitions in society, then. I haven't seen the brickfilm in question, but my understanding is that it is not *about* sex, though it happens to have sex in (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Well, I hear about MFs being depicted as gay. How else can one know the sexual orientation of a MF unless one sees that MF engaging in sexual activity. Depictions of sex is the definition of pornography. (...) If it were just one or two (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Ug. I was trying to read through all the posts on this thread, but I started getting a bad taste in my mouth. I want to go back and get the good feeling that Brad's posts have given me in the Lego Direct newsgroup... As far as the legality of (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
